Comments on: The Return of the General Warrant?http://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/
It rankles me when somebody tries to tell somebody what to do.Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:59:44 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7By: Links #112 « The Honest Courtesanhttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/comment-page-1/#comment-3746507
Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:30:54 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=26160#comment-3746507[…] Judge literally gives cops carte blanche for searches. […]
]]>By: markmhttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/comment-page-1/#comment-3745721
Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:07:19 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=26160#comment-3745721Burgers: The problem is that you’re assuming that a court will eventually take notice of a defective warrant application and decide the case accordingly. Ask one of Radley’s former pet causes in Missouri, I forget the name, about how much difference a plainly defective warrant made in his trial for shooting a cop who broke into his home
]]>By: Burgers Alldayhttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/comment-page-1/#comment-3717259
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:32:04 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=26160#comment-3717259Burgers #29: Yeah, nice try. If the cops were just required to file the warrant application somewhere, they’d file the same ten pages of gibberish every time, raid the location, kill the suspect, and then, if anyone asks, say “Oops, our intern sent the wrong paperwork in.”

No, under my system they would be stuck with what they filed. It would bea whole lot more secure than what happens now because the software would be written to be secure.

This is especially common with Fourth Amendment issues. You can see it in the logic behind the exclusionary rule: the police have an interest in getting convictions, and they might use illegal searches to get evidence to convict people; therefore, if the search is illegal, we exclude the evidence, thus undoing the effect of the search! Brilliant! Except the police just trashed your house and shot your dog, and we can’t undo that.

Um, yeah, I get that. Go to police4aqi.wordpress.com, read what I have written there and then get back to me.

]]>By: Mark Z.http://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/comment-page-1/#comment-3716965
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:07:20 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=26160#comment-3716965Burgers #29: Yeah, nice try. If the cops were just required to file the warrant application somewhere, they’d file the same ten pages of gibberish every time, raid the location, kill the suspect, and then, if anyone asks, say “Oops, our intern sent the wrong paperwork in.”

You’re making the standard lawyer mistake of evaluating one part of the system under the assumption that every other part works perfectly. This is especially common with Fourth Amendment issues. You can see it in the logic behind the exclusionary rule: the police have an interest in getting convictions, and they might use illegal searches to get evidence to convict people; therefore, if the search is illegal, we exclude the evidence, thus undoing the effect of the search! Brilliant! Except the police just trashed your house and shot your dog, and we can’t undo that. And the police also have an interest in harassing and punishing people they don’t like. But the Supreme Court is full of white male Harvard Law graduates, and in their experience the police don’t behave like that.

]]>By: Real Liberty Media News Blog - 2012-08-20 | Real Liberty Mediahttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/comment-page-1/#comment-3716907
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:48:43 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=26160#comment-3716907[…] Masters — Sott.netAustrian Economics and Liberty: Right to Own Guns and Gold – Ron PaulThe Return of the General Warrant? | The AgitatorCows eating candy during the droughtHeard the rumour China is buying 6,000 tonnes of gold? It may […]
]]>By: Frankhttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/comment-page-1/#comment-3716155
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:55:52 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=26160#comment-3716155“Actually, there are. 18 USC 242 and 243, if memory serves.”
These penalties only apply if their corrupt colleagues will pursue them. Not much chance of that, agreed?
]]>By: Burgers Alldayhttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/comment-page-1/#comment-3716003
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:53:38 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=26160#comment-3716003Not so. The existence of probable cause is a pre-condition to the judicial issuance of a warrant. The existence of pre-signed warrants completely removes the element of establishing/demonstrating probable cause from the equation, rendering its very existence a moot and extraneous point.

The point i am making is not that important, and you are still completely missing it.

Basically i am saying that the police are probably going to fill out less completely ridiculous warrants when using a pre-signed form. this because they know that if the pre-signed warrant is facially ridiculous, or incredibly sloppy, then a later investigation (eg, iad, civil suit) might uncover the truth. OTOH, if the judge actually rubberstamps it, then it is less likely to come back and harm the policeman-requester, regardless of the weak probable cause basis and/or reckless errors.

And, yes, the whole system would probably work better if there were no warrants ever. The true value of a warrant isn’t that magistrates stop those without probable cause. Because they don’t. they may sometimes reign in scope of the search, but even that is pretty marginal as far as value to a free society.

rather, the value of a warrant, in the modern world, is that it prevents the policeman from making up new facts supporting probable cause, adding new places to search and/or adding new items to seize after the fact. The other value is that the seizee / arrestee will genereally get to see their warrant application papers, at least if they are serious enough to hire a lawyer.

When you look at the values of the previous paragraph, you realize that a magistrate is not needed. All that is needed is that the application documents be filed in a secure place so that the policeman can’t tamper with them after the searching and seizing happens. Also, there will be a record that the arrestee / seizee can access for later suppression hearings (when bad stuff/person is found) of civil suits (when arrestee/seizee turns out to be innocent). For exmple, the system by which applicants file Patent Applications electronically with the patent Office would work just fine. the patent application, as filed, is kept inviolate and nobody serious reads it for year or two or three. then, at 18 months, the whole world can read it. it would be better if this is how warrant application papers worked.

IOW, written warrants (especially the supporting “affidavits”) are important, but not because of the magistrate’s review (such as it is), but for other reasons.

I got into this with Professor Kerr about a year ago. He is EXTREMELY resistant to looking at the value of warrants in this manner I have outlined above. But, he is pretty much a blue koolaid slurper, so one would expect that out of him.

]]>By: dammitchrishttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/comment-page-1/#comment-3714693
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:41:32 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=26160#comment-3714693One of his accusers has been arrested:http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/aug/16/murray-deputy-arrests-woman-who-said/http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/19287308/accuser-against-murray-co-judge-arrested-on-drug-charges
]]>By: C.E.http://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/comment-page-1/#comment-3714375
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:43:43 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=26160#comment-3714375In his favor, it was at least more efficient than making the cops write up an application every time they wanted a warrant. I mean, it’s not like he was ever going to deny one, anyway.
]]>By: Bill Poserhttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/comment-page-1/#comment-3714138
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 01:13:17 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=26160#comment-3714138This may not be a case of corruption so much as incompetence. The judge in question was a magistrate judge. In Georgia, magistrate’s courts handle minor cases. The judges are elected in partisan elections and do not have to be lawyers. In fact, all they need is a high school diploma. In other words, minor local politicians with no legal background are making legal decisions. Even if this guy knew that he shouldn’t have pre-signed warrants, what are the odds that he had any real understanding of probable cause? These rinky-dink courts with unqualified judges should be abolished.
]]>By: jbhttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/comment-page-1/#comment-3713874
Mon, 20 Aug 2012 00:22:04 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=26160#comment-3713874 He knew that the affidavit was complete cattle excrement. He confronted the judge and discovered the truth.

Go on, and which one of the two is no longer employed by the state?

]]>By: Jerri Lynn Wardhttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/comment-page-1/#comment-3713741
Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:21:48 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=26160#comment-3713741A friend of mine reported to me that in Iowa some judges where giving blank, signed orders to the child protective service to enable removal of children without going to the judge each time. A sheriff friend of his discovered it when he was asked to serve such an order and assist in removal of the children of someone he knew. He knew that the affidavit was complete cattle excrement. He confronted the judge and discovered the truth.

“I guess I could have said –pre-signed warrants– instead of “unsigned warrants.”

Yes, and I think it would have been best to stick to the facts of the case. There is a *world* of difference between a pre-signed warrant and an unsigned warrant; one is, perforce, evidence of judicial corruption, while the other is merely evidence of incompetence or illegal activity by the police.

“…of course, the existence and/or relative strength of probable cause is independent of whether there is no warrant…”

Not so. The existence of probable cause is a pre-condition to the judicial issuance of a warrant. The existence of pre-signed warrants completely removes the element of establishing/demonstrating probable cause from the equation, rendering its very existence a moot and extraneous point. Probable cause only becomes a factor, and only exists as a pendant criterion, upon the due execution of an application for a warrant. Without the need for such application and demonstration, as we find in a system that provides for pre-signed warrants, probable cause becomes entirely ephemeral.

]]>By: supercathttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/comment-page-1/#comment-3713297
Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:28:24 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=26160#comment-3713297#19 | PersonFromPorlock | //One of the principal usufructs of nobility is the right to be tried only by a jury of peers.//

The right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers does not imply that a defendant could not opt to be tried by other means. On the other hand, the cited section of the Constitution should be significant for another reason: illegitimate actions can by definition form no part of a government agent’s legitimate duties, nor can any law grant legitimate immunity to government agents who deliberately act illegitimately. While it may be reasonable and appropriate for certain statutes to specifically authorize certain government personnel to do things as part of their duties which would be illegal for the general citizenry, and it may even be reasonable to extend such exemptions in cases where a government agent believes he is acting legitimately (e.g. using a warrant which was supposed to be issued for 742 Evergreen Terrace but was mistyped as 724 Evergreen Terrace, he conducts a search of the latter property; such a search should not be regarded as having been legitimate, nor should any evidence found in it be admissible, but the police officer who searched the address on the warrant should not be punished). Anyone claiming such an exemption, however, should be called upon to demonstrate that he had a reasonable belief that his actions were legitimate. A cop who breaks into people’s houses using warrants that he knows were not issued on the basis of probable cause backed by oath or affirmation relating personal knowledge of the affiant is a burglar and/or robber, depending upon whether he accosts any occupants therein; any judge who knowingly issued illegitimate warrants should be prosecuted as a conspirator.

]]>By: Awphttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/19/the-return-of-the-general-warrant/comment-page-1/#comment-3713258
Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:09:28 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=26160#comment-3713258Great info and a great illustration of how some so called officers of the law are so quick to disregard actual law but….and I’m being a little pedantic here but I can’t help myself, apologies…isn’t the title “The Return of the Gerenal Warrant?” a bit misleading? Perhaps I am totally off base but I thought the US has never allowed the practice: Under the 4th amendment, “… and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” True that this amendment was adopted in response to writs of assistance used by courts in British America pre-revolution but those writs are merely a form of general warrant and I believe the language used in the 4th amendment reflects that. Again…sorry to be so nitpicky. I love your blog and read it religiously. I find the issues you write about to be extremely important and pertinent. The prescriptivist in me took over.
]]>